Re: [Xen-devel] efi_enabled(EFI_PARAVIRT) use

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Matt Fleming wrote:
> > On Fri, 29 Apr, at 11:34:45AM, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > > On Fri, 29 Apr 2016, Ingo Molnar wrote:
> > > > Also, it would be nice to have all things EFI in a single tree, the 
> > > > conflicts are 
> > > > going to be painful! There's very little reason not to carry this kind 
> > > > of commit:
> > > > 
> > > >  arch/arm/xen/enlighten.c           |  6 +++++
> > > >  drivers/firmware/efi/arm-runtime.c | 17 +++++++++-----
> > > >  drivers/firmware/efi/efi.c         | 45 
> > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------
> > > >  3 files changed, 56 insertions(+), 12 deletions(-)
> > > > 
> > > > in the EFI tree.
> > > 
> > > That's true. I'll drop this commit from xentip and let Matt pick it up
> > > or request changes as he sees fit.
> > 
> > One small change I think would be sensible to make is to expand
> > EFI_PARAVIRT into a few more bits to clearly indicate the quirks on
> > Xen, and in the process, to delete EFI_PARAVIRT.
> > 
> > That should address Ingo's major concern, and also make it much easier
> > to rework the code in a piecemeal fashion.
> > 
> > Could somebody enumerate the things that make Xen (dom0) different on
> > arm* compared with bare metal EFI boot? The list I made for x86 was,
> > 
> >   1. Has no EFI memory map
> >   2. Runtime regions do not need to be mapped
> >   3. Cannot call SetVirtualAddressMap()
> >   4. /sys/firmware/efi/fw_vendor is invisible
> > 
> > The first maps to not setting EFI_MEMMAP, the second to not setting
> > EFI_RUNTIME. If we add EFI_ALREADY_VIRTUAL and EFI_FW_VENDOR_INVISIBLE
> > to efi.flags that should cover everything on x86. Does arm* require
> > anything else?
> 
> Xen on ARM is different, the impact should be limited:
> 
> - there are no BootServices (ExitBootServices has already been called)
> - RuntimeServices go via hypercalls
> 
> The UEFI memory map is still available at an address specified on device
> tree like on native, but the compatibility string is different
> ("xen,uefi-mmap-start") to clarify that we are booting on Xen rather
> than native.
> 
> That's pretty much it, Shannon please confirm.

This is to say that Xen on ARM might only need EFI_RUNTIME.

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel